On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:55:43PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > ISTR the conclusion last time was nack on the whole approach. What > > changed between then and now? I can't detect any fundamental changes > > from the description. > > > > This includes system oom handling alongside memcg oom handling. If you > have specific objections, please let us know, thanks! Umm, that wasn't the bulk of objection, was it? We were discussion the whole premise of userland oom handling and the conclusion, at best, was that you couldn't show that it was actually necessary and most other people disliked the idea. Just changing a part of it and resubmitting doesn't really change the whole situation. If you want to continue the discussion on the basic approach, please do continue that on the original thread so that we don't lose the context. I'm gonna nack the respective patches so that they don't get picked up by accident for now. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
